Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: katieq Date: May 9, 2013 2:41pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Hatari - pd

I would love to see the actually postmark on the or date of whatever service they used to get it to copyright office on the day after the new years day?

I see a pattern here every movie renewed by Richard Bear (which is not legit) was also renwed by Paramount under the expection rule

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000459858 / 1989-12-27
Renewal registration for: LP0000019799 / 1961-05-19
Title: On the double. By Dena Pictures.
Copyright Claimant: David R. Baer (PWH)
Variant title: On the double.
Names: Baer, David R.
Dena Pictures.

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479375 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000019799 / 1961-05-19
Title: On the double. By Dena Pictures, Inc. and Paramount Pictures Corporation.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation (PWH)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703 C.O. correspondence.
Variant title: On the double.
Names: Dena Pictures, Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation

Mr. Bear has been known to renew films and sell them back to the actually owners, case in point THE BLOB and One-Eyed Jacks wich they refused to be exploited on, sounds like Paramount found another way to file all rewewals on these pictures that David Baer had renewed timely and offered to sell them back to them. They used the "Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 703," excuse to file them later

before anyone says that is sooooo far fetched this is Paramount the same people who paid off a judge on the Star Trek case to have all the epiosdes that were pd with no notices allow them to put a 1978 notice on them and "rescue" them from pd

something is not correct with these renewals

Katieq

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: larus Date: May 19, 2013 4:24am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Hatari - pd

I would love to see the actually postmark on the or date of whatever service they used to get it to copyright office on the day after the new years day?
It depends on when they posted it. It couldn't have been that hard to get it to the USCO on January 2nd if they mailed it on
Friday (December 29th) or even Saturday (December 30th) using Fedex or even the USPS. Columbia could even have put someone on a plane to DC on January 1st. It's not as if Columbia is short on money.

I see a pattern here every movie renewed by Richard Bear (which is not legit) was also renwed by Paramount under the expection rule
It's hard to extrapolate a pattern from two occurrences. Besides, there is also another renewal filed under section 703 on the same date for a film that David Baer didn't try to highjack:
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000462001 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000020963 / 1961-12-08
Title: Spring in Scandinavia.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation (PWH)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703
Names: Paramount Pictures Corporation

Moreover, there are dozens of other filings made on the same date under section 703, by entities that have nothing to do with either Columbia or David Baer. Here are a few:

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000462004 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000021577 / 1961-08-21
Title: Just like me. By Karl Baptiste Lohmann, Jr.
Copyright Claimant: Karl Baptiste Lohmann, Jr. (A)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703
Variant title: Just like me.
Names: Lohmann, Karl Baptiste, Jr.

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000504821 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: A00000500065 / 1961-04-21
Title: A Promise to our country "I pledge allegiance ...." By James Calvert, pictures by James Daugherty.
Copyright Claimant: James Calvert & James Daugherty (A)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 U.S.C. sec. 703
Variant title: A Promise to our country "I pledge allegiance ...."
Names: Calvert, James
Daugherty, James

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000504816 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: A00000522205 / 1961-09-19
Title: Lee’s maverick general: Daniel Harvey Hill. By Hal Bridges.
Copyright Claimant: Hal Bridges (A)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703
Variant title: Lee’s maverick general: Daniel Harvey Hill.
Names: Bridges, Hal


Besides, renewals on the next business day when the last day of the renewal window is not a business day are nothing new.
Here are more examples from January 2nd, 1979 (December 31st, 1978 fell on a Sunday):

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000012881 / 1979-01-02
Renewal registration for: A00000045791 / 1950-07-05
Title: No business for a lady. By James L. Rubel.
Copyright Claimant: James L. Rubel, Jr. & Jane Kuhnert (C)
Variant title: No business for a lady.
Names: Rubel, James L.
Rubel, James L., Jr.
Kuhnert, Jane

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000012883 / 1979-01-02
Renewal registration for: A00000044964 / 1950-05-31
Title: Slavery in Alabama. By James Benson Sellers.
Copyright Claimant: Carrie A. Sellers (W)
Variant title: Slavery in Alabama.
Names: Sellers, James Benson
Sellers, Carrie A.


And here are even more examples from January 3nd, 1989 (December 31st, 1988 fell on a Saturday and January 1st, 1989 fell on a Sunday so January 2nd became a holiday):

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000413237 / 1989-01-03
Renewal registration for: A00000479375 / 1960-12-02
Title: The Real jazz. By Hugues Panassie.
Edition: Rev. ed.
Copyright Claimant: Hugues Panassie (A)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 U.S.C. sec. 703
Variant title: The Real jazz.
Names: Panassie, Hugues

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000413234 / 1989-01-03
Renewal registration for: A00000474236 / 1960-11-18
Title: Style in art. By Lincoln Rothschild.
Copyright Claimant: Lincoln Rothschild (A)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 U.S.C. sec. 703
Variant title: Style in art.
Names: Rothschild, Lincoln


These are only a few examples. There are dozens of renewals filed on the first business day of 1979, 1984, 1988 and 1989, on materials ranging from books to films. The code explicitly states that such renewals are timely.

before anyone says that is sooooo far fetched this is Paramount the same people who paid off a judge on the Star Trek case to have all the epiosdes that were pd with no notices allow them to put a 1978 notice on them and "rescue" them from pd

something is not correct with these renewals

Nothing is wrong with these renewals. Section 703 clearly asserts the copyright holder's right to file on the next business day when the last day of the renewal window is not a business day. Given how clearly section 703 is formulated, I cannot see how any judge could possibly deem these renewals to be invalid in an infringement trial.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: katieq Date: May 19, 2013 10:26pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Hatari - pd

Lazarus

You obviously are still suffering from leprosy and it has obviously eaten away your brain.

1. For starters aren't you the same person who calls 35mm films 32mm? There goes most of your credit when you don't even know simple film gauge.

Most every title shot on film is listed this way on imdb

Negative Format 35 mm

or whatever format was used and there is no such format as 32mm fFYI

1. Here is the pattern

[ 1 ] Baer, David R. Big game hunter. m Hal Shrager, w Sid Shrager & Al Chorney. 1960
[ 2 ] Baer, David R. Big risk. By Mondex Films. 1963
[ 3 ] Baer, David R. Brain. m Hal Shrager, w Sid Shrager & Al Chorney. 1959
[ 4 ] Baer, David R. Godzilla, king of the monsters. By Jewell Enterprises, Inc. 1956
[ 5 ] Baer, David R. Godzilla, king of the monsters; motion picture / LP6465 (1956) 1987
[ 6 ] Baer, David R. Godzilla, king of the monsters; motion picture / RE 254-883 (1984) 1988
[ 7 ] Baer, David R. Hatari. By Malabar Productions. 1961
[ 8 ] Baer, David R. Look around. w & m Don Coats & Dick Smith. 1960
[ 9 ] Baer, David R. On the double. By Dena Pictures. 1961
[ 10 ] Baer, David R. One-eyed jacks. By Pennebaker, Inc. 1960
[ 11 ] Baer, David R. Road hog. m Johnny Zorro (Dave Parrazzo) 1959


2. They go by the postmark of the carrier of renewal filing so I don't know what your point is about flying, driving, walking, to Washington D.C. to file these renewals when it just had to have a date of the next business day on it.

3. I can read and totally understand Section 703, that is not the point. The point is the titles I listed were renewed by David R. Baer (PWH)a nd have personally spoken to him concerning One Eyed Jacks and he didn't like it at all being questioned, and changed the subject but the common story I've heard from Paramount (NOT Columbia as you keep stating above (probably more of your leprosy kicking in again) is Mr. Baer approached them with his fradulent renewal offered to sell it to them and drew up fraudulent documents that the film was assigned to Mr. Baer previous of renewal and then he renewed film then signed it back over to Paramount.

Here is Example of him doing this exact thing

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000254883 / 1984-12-31
Renewal registration for: LP0000006465 / 1956-04-27
Title: Godzilla, king of the monsters. By Jewell Enterprises, Inc.
Copyright Claimant: David R. Baer #PWH#
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.

Variant title: Godzilla, king of the monsters.
Names: Baer, David R.
Jewell Enterprises, Inc.

Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V2248P363
Date of Recordation: 1987-03-05
Entire Copyright Document: V2248P363 #Single page document#
Date of Execution: as of 23Aug84
Registration Number Not Verified: LP6465 #1956#
Title: Godzilla, king of the monsters; motion picture / LP6465 #1956#
Notes: Assignment of copyright.
Party 1: Jewell Enterprises.
Party 2: David R. Baer.

Names: Baer, David R.
Jewell Enterprises.

Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V2355P044
Date of Recordation: 1988-04-22
Entire Copyright Document: V2355P044 #Single page document#
Date of Execution: 18Mar88
Registration Number Not Verified: RE 254-883 #1984#
Title: Godzilla, king of the monsters; motion picture / RE 254-883 #1984#
Notes: Assignment of copyright.
Party 1: David R. Baer.
Party 2: Toho Company, Ltd.

Names: Baer, David R.
Toho Company, Ltd.


Well Paramount (again NOT Columbia, I'm telling ya you really got get that leprosy under control) told Mr. Baer to got fuck himself.

So my point is it is NOT far fetched for Paramount being alerted to his renewals of their property and got them filed under Section 703.

Here is the main point... would love to see all paperwork and files on all movies he renewed and Paramounts I mentioned to see when they were actually filed and again I state the Star Trek case as the law can be manipulated by studios and money

So why don't you jump on a plane, bike, car and get to to Washington D.C. look up all the documents under these titles and share it with the rest of us so we will know.

Katieq

This post was modified by katieq on 2013-05-20 05:10:09

This post was modified by katieq on 2013-05-20 05:15:46

This post was modified by katieq on 2013-05-20 05:22:15

This post was modified by katieq on 2013-05-20 05:26:48

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: larus Date: May 20, 2013 7:37am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Hatari - pd

For starters aren't you the same person who calls 35mm films 32mm
The number 32 is frequently encountered in my occupation, so I slipped. Let the one among you who never slipped cast the first stone.

They go by the postmark of the carrier of renewal filing
Do you have a source for this? I know that the IRS goes by postmarks, but in all the material I've come across, the USCO only seems to go by the date of reception.
This is what USCO Circular 1 , page 10 states:
Effective Date of Registration
A copyright registration is effective on the date the Copyright Office receives all the required elements in acceptable form.
The time the Copyright Office requires to process an application varies, depending on the amount of material the Office is receiving.
(...)
If you apply using a paper application and you want to
know the date that the Copyright Office receives your material, send it by registered or certified mail and request a return receipt.


the common story I've heard from Paramount
You have direct sources at Paramount on this issue?

I can read and totally understand Section 703, that is not the point
All right, then let's go back to the basics. Paramount (and not Columbia, yesterday was a long day and I slipped) has three renewals dated 1990-01-02, two of which David Baer tried to highjack.

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000462001 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000020963 / 1961-12-08
Title: Spring in Scandinavia.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation (PWH)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703
Names: Paramount Pictures Corporation

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479374 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000022962 / 1961-12-31
Title: Hatari. By Paramount Pictures Corporation and Malabar Productions, Inc.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation (PWH)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703 C.O. correspondence.

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479375 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000019799 / 1961-05-19
Title: On the double. By Dena Pictures, Inc. and Paramount Pictures Corporation.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation (PWH)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703 C.O. correspondence.
Variant title: On the double.
Names: Dena Pictures, Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation

I've been slow to realize you understand that the renewals would have been valid if filed on 1990-01-02 but you contend that the renewals for On the double and Hatari, although, dated 1990-01-02, were actually filed later and Paramount bribed their way into having them backdated.
Now, where does this leave Spring in Scandinavia? Was its renewal filed on 1990-01-02 or was it filed later along with the other two that David Baer tried to highjack?

Renewal numbers are given sequentially as applications are processed, so we can try and figure out when an application was processed by looking the dates for neighboring numbers.

Here are a few renewals whose numbers are just below and just above that of Spring in Scandinavia (RE0000462001):

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000462000 / 1989-12-29
Renewal registration for: A00000522235 / 1961-09-15
Title: Education and attitude change. By Charles Herbert Stember.
Copyright Claimant: the American Jewish Committee (PWH)
Variant title: Education and attitude change.
Names: Stember, Charles Herbert
American Jewish Committee

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000462002 / 1989-12-29
Renewal registration for: A00000540376 / 1961-11-02
Title: Frosty the Snowman. No. 1272.
Copyright Claimant: Hill and Range Songs, Inc. (PWH)
Variant title: Frosty the Snowman.
Names: Hill and Range Songs, Inc.

Type of Work: Cancelled Registration
Cancelled Registration Number: RE0000462003
Registration cancelled; deceased claimant
Title: The Space elephant; sketch. By Salvador Dali.
Variant title: The Space elephant

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000462004 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000021577 / 1961-08-21
Title: Just like me. By Karl Baptiste Lohmann, Jr.
Copyright Claimant: Karl Baptiste Lohmann, Jr. (A)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703
Variant title: Just like me.
Names: Lohmann, Karl Baptiste, Jr.

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000462005 / 1989-12-29
Renewal registration for: LP0000024531 / 1961-09-14 (in notice: 1962)
Title: Don’t call me Charlie!
Copyright Claimant: National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (PWH)
Other Title: Vive Judson McKay.
Names: National Broadcasting Company, Inc.

All these applications have dates close to the end of 1989 and are not from Paramount (so we can supposed we're not dealing with a bunch of potentially backdated applications), so it looks like the renewal for Spring in Scandinavia was actually filed on its stated date.


There is indeed a gap between the renewal number for Spring in Scandinavia on one hand (462001), and those for Hatari and On the double on the other (479374, 479375).

Here are renewals whose number precede or follow those for Hatari and On the double:

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479370 / 1990-04-02
Renewal registration for: A00000570550 / 1962-05-02
Title: A Guide to Civil War store card tokens. No. 9357. By Whitman Publishing Company, as employer for hire of George Fuld and Melvin Fuld.
Copyright Claimant: Western Publishing Company, Inc. (PWH)
Variant title: A Guide to Civil War store card tokens.
Names: Fuld, George
Fuld, Melvin
Whitman Publishing Company
Western Publishing Company, Inc.

Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479371 / 1990-04-25
Renewal registration for: JP0000007990 / 1962-10-25
Title: Massachusetts cents. Pl. no. 2. By Philip D. Greco.
Copyright Claimant: Philip D. Greco (A)
Variant title: Massachusetts cents.
Names: Greco, Philip D.

Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479372 / 1990-04-25
Renewal registration for: JP0000007991 / 1962-10-25
Title: Massachusetts cents. Pl. no. 1. By Philip D. Greco.
Copyright Claimant: Philip D. Greco (A)
Variant title: Massachusetts cents.
Names: Greco, Philip D.

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479373 / 1990-01-29
Renewal registration for: A00000573270 / 1962-07-06
Title: Love, life, and laughter. By Judith L. Miller (Judith M. Feller)
Appears in: Three poets and an artist
Copyright Claimant: Judith M. Feller (A)
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
Variant title: Love, life, and laughter.
Names: Feller, Judith M.
Miller, Judith L.

Type of Work: Serial
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479376 / 1990-03-28
Title: [Don’t look now, and other contributions] By Barbara Robinson.
Copyright Claimant: Barbara Robinson (A)
Contributions: (In McCall’s, Feb. 1962) Don’t look now. Pub. 1962-01-18; B00000952925.
(In McCall’s, June 1962) Sweet, golden summer. Pub. 1962-05-22; B00000978779.
(In Redbook, Jan. 1963) Very special girl. Pub. 1962-12-18; B00000016799.
Other Title: McCall’s, Feb. 1962
McCall’s, June 1962
Redbook, Jan. 1963
Names: Robinson, Barbara

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479377 / 1990-03-28
Renewal registration for: A00000548501 / 1962-02-23
Title: Across from Indian Shore. By Barbara Robinson.
Copyright Claimant: Barbara Robinson (A)
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
Variant title: Across from Indian Shore.
Names: Robinson, Barbara

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479378 / 1990-01-26
Renewal registration for: A00000548708 / 1962-02-28
Title: The Golden log. Edited by Mody C. Boatright, Wilson M. Hudson, and Allen Maxwell.
Copyright Claimant: Texas Folklore Society (PCW)
Basis of Claim: New Matter: assorted stories included in Texas Folklore Society publication.
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
Variant title: The Golden log.
Names: Boatright, Mody C.
Hudson, Wilson M.
Maxwell, Allen
Texas Folklore Society

Type of Work: Serial
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479379 / 1990-03-09
Renewal registration for: B00000024524 / 1962-11-26
Title: Infrared spectrograms. No. 20,001-21,000.
Edition: Midget Ed.
Copyright Claimant: Sadtler Research Laboratories (PWH)
Variant title: Infrared spectrograms.
Names: Sadtler Research Laboratories

Type of Work: Serial
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479380 / 1990-03-09
Renewal registration for: B00000024514 / 1962-12-28
Title: Sadtler ultra violet spectra. Set no. 3.
Copyright Claimant: Sadtler Research Laboratories (PWH)
Variant title: Sadtler ultra violet spectra.
Names: Sadtler Research Laboratories

These records indicate a processing time frame as late as the end of April. However, processing for Hatari and On the double was delayed because additional information requested by the USCO due to renewals already filed by Baer, as evidenced by the presence of 'C.O. correspondence' in the copyright note for the two films:

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479374 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000022962 / 1961-12-31
Title: Hatari. By Paramount Pictures Corporation and Malabar Productions, Inc.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation (PWH)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703 C.O. correspondence.

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000479375 / 1990-01-02
Renewal registration for: LP0000019799 / 1961-05-19
Title: On the double. By Dena Pictures, Inc. and Paramount Pictures Corporation.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation (PWH)
Copyright Note: Entered under 17 USC sec. 703 C.O. correspondence.
Variant title: On the double.
Names: Dena Pictures, Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation


Given that the renewal for Spring in Scandinavia was filed on time, we are left with two possibilities:
(a)all three renewals were timely filed on 1990-01-02, but processing for the latter two was delayed due to requests for clarifications by the USCO as to whether a transfer had been made to Baer
(b)Paramount filed only one renewal on 1990-01-02 (for Spring in Scandinavia), filed the other two much later and bribed their way into having them backdated.

(a) is my pick because it seems strange that Paramount would have bothered to file a single renewal on 1990-01-02 while leaving out the other two. Moreover, I am not aware of any proven instance of the USCO having backdated applications, and the outcome of the Star Trek case you keep referring to does not constitute proof that the USCO can be bribed into backdating renewals.

This being said, I have the feeling that you will stick to option (b), which is your right. I just have trouble imagining a judge agreeing with your position if such a case were ever to make it to trial.